>>18886
This is a bit more complex.
All anarchists generally agree on the idea of bodily autonomy unless you're one of those weird AnComs that believe in collective ownership to the extent that one's body can be violated by the collective so long as it's collectively agreed on.
The idea of private property from the AnCap spectrum Natural Rights aside is the notion that bodily autonomy extends to things created via your own labor. Therefore if we can not violate others bodies because we only own our own body, then we should, morally, not be able to violate the products of others bodies because we only own the products of our own body.
In effect, if bodily autonomy is an axiom, a tautology, then the products of one's bodily autonomy are a provable theorem. These proofs and sets can be used to logically create the theorem of private property/private property rights. Via a pseudo-mathematics viewpoint.
When talking about intellectual property, one can say that no, the property created by one's imagination is not in fact a legitimate piece of property since anyone could use their bodily autonomy to create a theory of how to make something. The true question is, if something is someone's property and is actualized, does the rigorous intellectual process that theorized it extend to that application alone, or to all objects using that theory, to which the answer, I believe, is neither.
If you look at a bucket, a bucket was the intellectual property of someone, at some point, who understood that planks of wood tightly packed together created a barrier that water could not pass through. Someone, at some point in human history, had to develop the technology of the bucket using what they already knew about the natural world/natural laws of the world. Others created vases, and others simply used giant leaves or other means to achieve the same results, but the bucket was at one point someone's intellectual property, and they likely profited off of it.
At some point, the bucket became common knowledge (whether through enough of them being sold, or through sharing the knowledge is irrelevant). From this process, we can extrapolate that there is some qualifying marker of an object that changed it from the intellectual property of one person to that of everyone. There's different approaches you can take from this, but the one I prefer to refer to is the spread of said technology becoming public knowledge.
In this sense, if Bob creates a new engine that performs a function using his knowledge, then Joe, who lives in the same town, must respect the bodily autonomy used to make that engine if Bob intends to profit from his engine. If Joe wishes to take Bob's technology whether by asking or stealing that knowledge and remake it in the next town over, then it is Joe's intellectual property in the next town over, but Joe should not infringe on Bob's creation or Bob's right to sell his creation within that community, as that would create a disincentive for Bob to innovate further in the future. Every time Bob sells one of his engines, he sells a "share" of his technology to others. He is selling the rights to the knowledge that went into creating that technology to others.
Therefore is Joe's bigger company wishes to use the technology, they must first buy the technology, effectively purchasing a "share" of Bob's technology, in which Bob acknowledges that he is selling that share to Joe's company and not to Joe specifically. Alternatively, Joe's company could buy one of Bob's engines from someone he sold it to provided they did not sign a contract stating they would not.
In this sense, intellectual property rights have been born. A judge/court would hold Joe's company accountable if they simply took Bob's technology without paying for a share in Bob's knowledge via the purchase of Bob's engine, or tricked Bob into giving them a share via illusive means.
This will probably look like a jumbled mess when I'm proof reading through it, but it made sense when I was writing it.